WPC@ ?/)R.z% ,"_w֓x:J.뻥_Ɣ1kE!z+"mm Nm8˦ 9?m hb &~+oҘDu;mC0]3}r*@`dwڲlq(=)1쫑4䅄x"QTK *9?vbYzdXp?Na.1Svښ]}V6"xBP ҸZH[mWaqSS[BJCeJ=I#|~y]W)Ux];PFI] 5hh˂B{TQERk"Dwy͂\/HA(j[H켡^;0|./5ODiNN>ie 0?u$-=C-@!@%bUN\ % 0^ 8wD4H\ zk m # UN   k 1 0 :N111E333333333333333333333333b555555555555555555555555555555555555 0==== B(( 0E D3 D- 0KII AS 0 0DQ A(hH  Z6Times New Roman Regular(`$.8dd8    ;&-s PH,3|x C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wptUHP LaserJet 4000 Series PCL 6,,,,0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 542Emphasis- -(|G2#$ !.86dd8         0  4 d(|3{$ !.86dd8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3{$ !.86dd8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.86dd8     _   68m`XXdd8@tt5M6INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE  @kk$ATNASHVILLE#65M #Ԉ &    @  @` AssignedonBriefsAugust14,2002 L Xm`X6 #6XXm` #JOHNNY_McCLAIN_v.STATEOFTENNESSEEXm`X6  J @@ AppealfromtheCriminalCourtforDavidsonCounty  J @@No.95B851J.RandallWyatt,Jr.,Judge  6 @@*AV) ` dE<` A   @@TTNo.M200102713CCAR3PCFiledSeptember5,_2002_   AV) ` dE<|` A }      Xm`XXXm`TheAppellant,Johnny_McClain_,appealsasofrightfromthejudgmentoftheDavidsonCounty x  CriminalCourtdenyinghispetitionforpost-convictionrelief.Onappeal,theAppellantarguesthat d hereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.Afterreviewoftherecord,wefindthattheAppellants P brieffailstoprovideanyargumentinsupportoftheissueaspresented.DuetotheAppellants < proceduraldefault,theappealisdismissed. (x #Xm`XX Xm`##6XXm`#Xm`X6 Tenn.R.App.P.3;AppealDismissed.  P   #6Xm`#Xm`X.6DavidG.Hayes,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhichJoeG.RileyandNormaMcGee ( Ogle,JJ.,joined.  DanielL._McMurtry_,Nashville,Tennessee,fortheAppellant,Johnny_McClain_.  PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter;MichaelMoore,SolicitorGeneral;JenniferL. t _Bledsoe_,AssistantAttorneyGeneral;VictorS.(_Torry_)JohnsonIII,DistrictAttorneyGeneral;and ` DanHamm,AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheAppellee,StateofTennessee. L  #6XXm`9#Xm`X6 @@OO& OPINION #6XXm`X #Xm`X6 #`"  FactualBackground  $8 $ #6XXm` #  Xm`X6 Xm`XXXm`  OnOctober19,1995,theAppellantwasconvictedbyaDavidsonCountyjuryofespecially '"' aggravatedrobbery,aggravatedrobbery,facilitationofattemptedfirstdegreemurder,andtwocounts (#( ofaggravatedassault.Thetrialcourtimposedaneffectiveseventyfiveyearsentence.The )$) Appellantsconvictionsandsentenceswereaffirmedondirectappeal.SeeStatev.JohnnyE. p*%* _McClain_,Jr.,No.01C019607CR00301(Tenn._Crim_.App.atNashville,Dec.1,1997),perm.to \+&+ appealdenied,(Tenn.1998). H,',  4-(-   OnNovember17,1999,theAppellantfiledapetitionforpostconvictionrelief,allegingthat  hereceivedineffectiveassistanceofcounsel.AnevidentiaryhearingwasheldonOctober10,2001.  OnOctober16,2001,thepost-convictioncourtdeniedtheAppellantpost-convictionrelief.This  timelyappealfollowed. t   ANALYSIS  L  "  Tosucceedinachallengeforineffectiveassistanceofcounsel,theAppellantmust $ t demonstratethatcounsel'srepresentationfellbelowtherangeofcompetencedemandedofattorneys  ` incriminalcases.  Baxterv.Rose`  ,523S.W.2d930,936(Tenn.1975).Under  _Strickland_Ԁv.  L  Washington  ,466U.S.668,687,104S.Ct.2052,2064(1984),theAppellantmustestablish:(1)  8  deficientrepresentation,and(2)prejudiceresultingfromthedeficiency.Theissuesofdeficient $  performancebycounselandpossibleprejudicetothedefensearemixedquestionsoflawandfact;   thus,ourreviewofthiscaseis  de_novo_  .  S  Fieldsv.State,40S.W.3d450,458(Tenn.2001)(citing   Tenn.R.App.P.13(d));Statev.Burns,6S.W.3d453,461(Tenn.1999);seealsoHenleyv.State,   960S.W.2d572,578(Tenn.1997).     Inthisappeal,theAppellantcontendsthattrialcounselwasineffectiveinthefollowing \ respects: H  8  (1)trialcounselfailedtoproperlyreviewthepetitionersrecord; p   8  (2)trialcounselfailedtopreparethepetitionerforsentencinghearing; \   8  (3)trialcounselfailedtorequestapreliminaryhearing;H   8  (4)trialcounselfailedtopreparefortrialwiththepetitioner; 4 (5)trialcounselfailedtocallalibiwitnesses;and   (6)trialcounselfailedtoallowthepetitioneradecisionmakingprocessinhisown   trial.   Despitehisassertionsofineffectiveness,theAppellant'sbriefcontainsnoauthorityorargumentin  supportofthesefactualallegations.TheAppellant'sentireargument,assetforthinhisbrief,is l recitedasfollows: X  8   ` Thestandardofreviewforineffectiveassistanceofcounselisthatcounselso 0"  prejudicedthedefendantthatthereisareasonableprobabilitythatthejurysverdict #l! wouldhavebeendifferent,_Strickland_Ԁv.Washington,466U.S.668,104S.Ct.2052, $X" 2063(1984).$D #   8   ` Inthiscase,theStatehadastrongerpositionduetothefailuresoftrial &"% counsellistedsoabove.'#&   8   ` Takingthefactthatthefailuresofthetrialcounselputthestateisastronger )$( positionanddoesleadonetoconcludethatthejurysverdictwouldhavebeen |*%) differentunderthe_Strickland_test.h+&*   Ї8      8   ` TheTrialCourterredindenyingdefendantspetitionforpostconviction,as  theasthefailuresoftrialcounselputthestateinastrongerposition,thusa  reasonableprobabilitythatthejurysverdictwouldhavebeendifferentexists.t   Rule27oftheTennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedureprovidesinrelevantpartthat: L  8  Thebriefoftheappellantshallcontain...[_a]n_Ԁargument,whichmaybepreceded $ t byasummaryofargument,settingforththecontentionsoftheappellantwithrespect  ` totheissuespresented,andthereasonstherefor,includingthereasonswhythe  L  contentionsrequireappellaterelief,withcitationstotheauthoritiesandappropriate  8  referencestotherecord(whichmaybequotedverbatim)reliedon. $      Tenn.R.App.P.27(a)(7);seealsoHarveyv.State,749S.W.2d478,479(Tenn._Crim_.App.1987),   perm.toappealdenied,(Tenn.1988)."Issueswhicharenotsupportedbyargument,citationto   authorities,orappropriatereferencestotherecordwillbetreatedaswaivedinthiscourt."Tenn.Ct.   _Crim_.App.R.10(b).Inthepresentcase,theAppellantdoesnotprovidethiscourtwithany p explanationastohowhisallegedclaimsofineffectiveassistanceofcounsel(1)wereinfact \ deficient;and(2)how,butforthesedeficiencies,therewasareasonableprobabilitythatthejury's H verdictwouldhavebeendifferent.Insum,theAppellanthasfailedtocomplywithRule27(a)(7), 4 TennesseeRulesofAppellateProcedure,whichrequiresthathe"[set]forththecontentions...with  p respecttotheissuespresented,andthereasonstherefor..."astowhyappellatereliefisrequired.  \ Accordingly,weareunabletoreviewonthemeritsandfindtheAppellant'sclaimofineffective H assistanceofcounselisprocedurallydefaulted.Theappealisdismissed. 4    CONCLUSION   .(  Basedupontheforegoing,wefindthattheineffectiveassistanceofcounselissueraisedby  theAppellantisprocedurallydefaultedinaccordancewithRule27(a)(7),TennesseeRulesof l AppellateProcedure,andRule10(b),TennesseeRulesoftheCourtofCriminalAppeals. X  Accordingly,theappealisdismissed. D! *#Xm`XX Xm` #   `     h     ___________________________________ &"%    `     h     DAVIDG.HAYES,JUDGE